a camera is just a dark space ... that's it.
i can see his home made cameras making images
on film or paper as negatives ...
a friend of mine made a pinhole camera out of his thanksgiving turkey one year
i don't think these cameras will make it to goodwill eitherhttp://www.boyofblue.com/cameras.html

People can fault his technique or make fun of his homemade cameras or even make fun of his appearance BUT the fact remains that he made photographs. Despite obvious hardship he has amassed a body of work that is distinctly his own. One that other people appreciate. How many on APUG can say the same for themselves. He did not waste his time in mindless testing of films or in the endless search for the perfect developer. He went out and mirabile dictu actually took pictures. I think there is a lesson here.

How does one test films and search for the perfect developer without taking pictures?

I think to imply someone who doesn't think much of this person's work doesn't have a collection of their own is a bit of a non sequitur. Not everyone is going to agree on every artist. What does that have to do with how productive they are as an artist?

As far as body of work is concerned the main constraint for most of us I believe is time (work/family constraints) and money (film ain't free). I don't think anyone has ever said I don't have many pictures because I've spent years testing films and searching for the perfect developer.

I don't like this guy's work at all. It hurts my eyes. It is uncomfortable to look at. If someone else wants to look at it that is their choice. That doesn't say anything about them or me as a photographer. I like Ansel Adams' work, but he seems like a internet favorite for using as a punching bag. There are far better photographers than me who have said Ansel doesn't do it for them. I argue with people about their opinions not their personal portfolio.

How does one test films and search for the perfect developer without taking pictures?

I think to imply someone who doesn't think much of this person's work doesn't have a collection of their own is a bit of a non sequitur. Not everyone is going to agree on every artist. What does that have to do with how productive they are as an artist?

As far as body of work is concerned the main constraint for most of us I believe is time (work/family constraints) and money (film ain't free). I don't think anyone has ever said I don't have many pictures because I've spent years testing films and searching for the perfect developer.

I don't like this guy's work at all. It hurts my eyes. It is uncomfortable to look at. If someone else wants to look at it that is their choice. That doesn't say anything about them or me as a photographer. I like Ansel Adams' work, but he seems like a internet favorite for using as a punching bag. There are far better photographers than me who have said Ansel doesn't do it for them. I argue with people about their opinions not their personal portfolio.

When one is testing film and developers you shoot resolution charts and other test images you do not do so by shooting Halfdome or other AA subjects. Without a standard to compare to your results would be meaningless. So while you are making "photographs" they are for technical not artistic purposes. I therefore find your comment rather pointless.

From the small amount of Tichy's work I have seen I am reserving any direct comment on it. The very fact that Tichy's work invokes an emotional response from you is an indication that his photographs are working at a certain level.

Some years ago there was a well known photo critic who wrote for one of the major photo magazines. His name was A D Coleman and he bragged that he had never taken a single photograph in his life. I therefore dismissed his comments on that basis. Those that can - do and those that can't - criticize. Should we consider those that spend all their time testing and none in creating as photographers or as mere technicians?

Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 06-25-2013 at 01:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

That's the point. Sometimes we need to be made to feel uncomfortable. It might not have been his original intent, he was probably fulfilling a personal fantasy - but the result of showing these pictures to the wider public has another effect on us is another matter, they make us feel uncomfortable, they make us feel like intruders, they make us ask questions. These women are inviting us into their lives. The imperfection brings an organic character to the pictures that is grubby and is not sterile. That's what it takes to produce this corpus of work, if that's what you want to call it. Everyone else would have been running around with an 8x10 and a light meter arguing about which zone to place the thighs in.

OK I guess I should just take it up the State funded Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney and ask why they spent on this unproven, hyped up, hipster "artist" This was not a couple of prints, it was a major show.

After all they did exhibit an extensive show of William Eggleston jointly with lesser known NZ photographer Laurence Aberhart (who knocked the sox off Tichy's aberrations) and currently Jeff Wall. Must have been a senior moment when they took on Tichy, but he was probably a hot item in all those expensive art magazines they read.

It is Art historians, galleries and curators who drive the art market and decide who gets to be who. Jeff Wall, now how do you suppose he got to be who he is? He is first and foremost an Art historian. I like his work, but it could easily be construed that he wrote himself into the book. I am pleased that you prefer aberration over abhorrence.

without getting all psychoanalytic about it, what's really interesting is that nearly 5 years after you opened this thread, you still seem hot under the collar about the subject.
Tichy's images are rather disturbing, and 5 years of disturbance says something for their power

without getting all psychoanalytic about it, what's really interesting is that nearly 5 years after you opened this thread, you still seem hot under the collar about the subject.
Tichy's images are rather disturbing, and 5 years of disturbance says something for their power

Anything that get people talking about art and quality and sustaining a conversation for 5 years can't be all that worthless.

OK I guess I should just take it up the State funded Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney and ask why they spent on this unproven, hyped up, hipster "artist" This was not a couple of prints, it was a major show.

After all they did exhibit an extensive show of William Eggleston jointly with lesser known NZ photographer Laurence Aberhart (who knocked the sox off Tichy's aberrations) and currently Jeff Wall. Must have been a senior moment when they took on Tichy, but he was probably a hot item in all those expensive art magazines they read.

OK I guess I should just take it up the State funded Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney and ask why they spent on this unproven, hyped up, hipster "artist" This was not a couple of prints, it was a major show.

After all they did exhibit an extensive show of William Eggleston jointly with lesser known NZ photographer Laurence Aberhart (who knocked the sox off Tichy's aberrations) and currently Jeff Wall. Must have been a senior moment when they took on Tichy, but he was probably a hot item in all those expensive art magazines they read.

Yes, you should take it up with the curators at the museum. If they are doing their jobs they should be able to explain their reasoning to you. You may not ultimately agree but you should at least have an understanding about the choice. I would hope you go into it with an open mind however and not jump to the conclusion that they had "a senior moment" or they were swayed by "expensive art magazines".